Often I hear the following argument provided as a defense for the continued legality of abortion:

P1.) If abortion ever comes to be criminalized/rendered illegal, then women would have to turn to clandestine, perhaps unsafe means of attaining abortions, which would put women seeking abortion at great risk by greatly increasing the possibility of them incurring (perhaps fatal) harm.

P2.) [It is wrong to/We should not] promote the incurring of (perhaps fatal) harm to women.

C: Therefore, we ought not make abortions illegal.

The reason why this sort of argument/rationale is weak is because it doesn't consider the possibility that abortion may, in fact, be an immoral action that should not be promoted even at the price of encouraging women to seek unsafe methods of attaining abortions. For example, along the same lines, one could argue accordingly:

P1.) If the profession of murdering individuals for money is rendered illegal, then this would force many individuals to turn to unsafe, unprofessional, means of attaining hitman services, which would put individuals seeking hitman services at risk by greatly increasing the possibility of them incurring (perhaps fatal) harm [for example, an unprofessional hitman who exorbitantly raises the price of a hit after completion, or an unprofessional hitman who murders the individual seeking to hire him for amusement, etc., etc., etc.,].

P2.) We should not promote the incurring of harm to those seeking professional hitman services.

C: Therefore, hitman services should not be rendered illegal.

It seems to me that when a pro-abortion individual attempts to convince a contra-abortion individual that abortion should remain legal on the grounds that criminalizing it would force women to seek unsafe, clandestine means of attaining abortions, the contra-abortion indivudal could simply say "So what?! I agree; it is quite unfortunate that, if abortion is criminalized, then many women seeking abortions might be harmed by having to resort to clandestine/unsafe means of attaining abortions, but why should I support the continued legalization of abortion - which amounts to murder - just to promote the facilitation of 'poor' women to 'safely' murder their own child? It's like a murderer complaining that, because of murder's illegality, he faces incurring harm from continuing to murder!"

At 1/3/2013 4:27:49 PM, SovereignDream wrote:Often I hear the following argument provided as a defense for the continued legality of abortion:

P1.) If abortion ever comes to be criminalized/rendered illegal, then women would have to turn to clandestine, perhaps unsafe means of attaining abortions, which would put women seeking abortion at great risk by greatly increasing the possibility of them incurring (perhaps fatal) harm.

P2.) [It is wrong to/We should not] promote the incurring of (perhaps fatal) harm to women.

C: Therefore, we ought not make abortions illegal.

The reason why this sort of argument/rationale is weak is because it doesn't consider the possibility that abortion may, in fact, be an immoral action that should not be promoted even at the price of encouraging women to seek unsafe methods of attaining abortions. For example, along the same lines, one could argue accordingly:

P1.) If the profession of murdering individuals for money is rendered illegal, then this would force many individuals to turn to unsafe, unprofessional, means of attaining hitman services, which would put individuals seeking hitman services at risk by greatly increasing the possibility of them incurring (perhaps fatal) harm [for example, an unprofessional hitman who exorbitantly raises the price of a hit after completion, or an unprofessional hitman who murders the individual seeking to hire him for amusement, etc., etc., etc.,].

P2.) We should not promote the incurring of harm to those seeking professional hitman services.

C: Therefore, hitman services should not be rendered illegal.

It seems to me that when a pro-abortion individual attempts to convince a contra-abortion individual that abortion should remain legal on the grounds that criminalizing it would force women to seek unsafe, clandestine means of attaining abortions, the contra-abortion individudal could simply say "So what?! I agree; it is quite unfortunate that, if abortion is criminalized, then many women seeking abortions might be harmed by having to resort to clandestine/unsafe means of attaining abortions, but why should I support the continued legalization of abortion - which amounts to murder - just to promote the facilitation of 'poor' women to 'safely' murder their own child? It's like a murderer complaining that, because of murder's illegality, he faces incurring harm from continuing to murder!"

Great analysis, SD.

Implicit in that argument is the beholders view that the child has less a right to the protections of our laws because protecting them would somehow 'force women' into more dangerous acts to kill their children with an abortion.

My response has always been that Killing children SHOULD be more dangerous for the killers.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

You could argue those things, but since we have implemented both in practice, it seems that making the profession of hitman illegal hasn't substantially raised the harm for those seeking hitman services high enough to warrant legalizing it, while it has for women seeking abortion. We needn't rely on hypotheticals when we have real-life examples!

The perceived immorality of abortion notwithstanding, our laws aren't about enforcing any system of morality, but to provide protection against tangible harm. Otherwise lying would be illegal.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 1/3/2013 6:34:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Some people just won't be happy until FORCED CONTINUATION of pregnancy is the lot of all women throughout the entire world, and what a great day that will be.

LOL.... did you just indicate that making it a crime to murder a prenatal child is tantamount to "forcing the continuation of pregnancy" onto women?

Why so much emphasis on the rights of the women and so little regard for the rights of the child?

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

Pro-choice advocates aren't "in favor" of abortion or wish to affirm "abortion." They are in favor of "choice" be that choice abortion or continued pregnancy. They wish to affirm choice, be that choice abortion or continued pregnancy.

When placed in contrast to "pro-life," it gives the implication that pro-choice advocates are "anti-life," and I find that to be a dishonest representation of the issues, attempting to sway via subtle tugs at emotional strings rather than participating in reasoned discourse.

And if that's what someone wants to do, then they might as well just abandon debate sites and stand on the side of the road with a blown up picture of an aborted fetus.

"LOL.... did you just indicate that making it a crime to murder a prenatal child is tantamount to "forcing the continuation of pregnancy" onto women? "

That is flatly true, y'know. Perhaps someday, there will be a way to extract a fetus that doesn't require the woman to bear it, but in the meantime, outlawing abortion DOES force the woman to continue her pregnancy (assuming she's law-abiding).

Whether that is necessarily a bad thing is, of course, matter of debate; I understand you feel it is NOT a bad thing, which I'm not arguing with you about.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 1/3/2013 6:34:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Some people just won't be happy until FORCED CONTINUATION of pregnancy is the lot of all women throughout the entire world, and what a great day that will be.

LOL.... did you just indicate that making it a crime to murder a prenatal child is tantamount to "forcing the continuation of pregnancy" onto women?

Why so much emphasis on the rights of the women and so little regard for the rights of the child?

That's utter bullsh*t, the reason being most anti choicers don't care if it is a pre natal child or not, they advocate that woman have no choice from the moment of conception to stop a continuation of pregancy.

Allow me to demonstrate Chaz......

So Chaz, does a woman have the right to destroy a blastocyst that is within her ? If not on what grounds ?

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

... the prefix "pro" generally indicates a preference over alternatives.

Drafterman, are you a proponent for keeping abortion legal or not?

If your answer is yes, that is all it takes for you to be called "pro-abortion." You have taken the "pro" side in the debate over whether or not abortion should remain legal. That makes you "pro abortion" in the context of the debate. You certainly can not claim to be "anti-abortion" while fighting to keep it legal.

Can you?

You the issue were guns and you took the "pro" side of the debate, you would be 'pro-gun' and your opponents would be 'anti-guns.' No-one would assume that a 'pro-gun' person in the debate would "favor" guns in every situation.

You are Pro-abortion in the context of the debate on the issue. That's all it means.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

"LOL.... did you just indicate that making it a crime to murder a prenatal child is tantamount to "forcing the continuation of pregnancy" onto women? "

That is flatly true, y'know. Perhaps someday, there will be a way to extract a fetus that doesn't require the woman to bear it, but in the meantime, outlawing abortion DOES force the woman to continue her pregnancy (assuming she's law-abiding).

Whether that is necessarily a bad thing is, of course, matter of debate; I understand you feel it is NOT a bad thing, which I'm not arguing with you about.

Okay, so do laws against child rape and molestation amount to 'forcing celibacy' onto would be pedophiles?

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

Okay, so do laws against child rape and molestation amount to 'forcing celibacy' onto would be pedophiles?

It would amount to 'forcing pedo celibacy', yes, by definition. It wouldn't be forcing general celibacy, as they would be free to have sex with someone who WASN'T a child.

So we agree, pedo's don't have the right to violate the rights of a child.... even if that means they can not fulfill their desires to have sex with them.

Correct?

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

So the Medical dictionaries and legal definitions which say it is.... are what?

Wrong?

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 1/3/2013 4:50:07 PM, drafterman wrote:You could argue those things, but since we have implemented both in practice, it seems that making the profession of hitman illegal hasn't substantially raised the harm for those seeking hitman services high enough to warrant legalizing it, while it has for women seeking abortion. We needn't rely on hypotheticals when we have real-life examples!

I know, I know. The hitman example was the best I could come up with at the time I wrote this. Please excuse my lack of imagination.

The perceived immorality of abortion notwithstanding, our laws aren't about enforcing any system of morality, but to provide protection against tangible harm. Otherwise lying would be illegal.

There's a worthwhile discussion of paternalism embedded in this section of your post. I do tend to see law as enforcing morality (and there are grounds, I think, on this view to deter the enforcement of petty laws, such as the lying example you mention) though that is for another topic, I fear.

Also, who's "pro" abortion?

I didn't mean anything controversial by it. All I take "pro-abortion" to mean is one who favors the continued legality of abortion. I hardly think that understanding is at all controversial or in any way tailored to provoke emotional responses.

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

At 1/3/2013 6:34:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Some people just won't be happy until FORCED CONTINUATION of pregnancy is the lot of all women throughout the entire world, and what a great day that will be.

Consider: if abortion does, in fact, amount to murder as many would argue it to be, then the use of the words "FORCED" etc. would unsolicited emotional reactions.

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

So the Medical dictionaries and legal definitions which say it is.... are what?

Wrong?

Your trying to argue that a blastocyst is a child ?

There is no argument to the fact that a child in the blastocyst stage of their life, growth and development is the biological child of the parents who created them. They are the young of their parents. Their 'child.'

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

People who without qualification claim that abortion kills babies, implying that for every abortion that has taken place a baby or "unborn" baby has being killed.

I don't know of any pro-lifers or anti-aborts who refer to a child in the first days of their life as a 'baby.' They (a child in their first days) are the young or child of their biological parents for sure... but I wouldn't refer to one as a baby. Even though the definitions for the word "baby" are broad enough as to include our favorite cars, guns, pets and kitchen appliances.

So the Medical dictionaries and legal definitions which say it is.... are what?

Wrong?

Your trying to argue that a blastocyst is a child ?

There is no argument to the fact that a child in the blastocyst stage of their life, growth and development is the biological child of the parents who created them. They are the young of their parents. Their 'child.'

This is not what comes to mind when the average person thinks of a "child". If you have to resort to some sort of dubious maneuvers between what a person normally thinks of when they think of a child and then some more technical definition when it comes to child and switch between the two in order to make to kill a "child/what most people have in mind" is the same as killing a "child/blastocyst" then this shows that such an argument can't maintain it's self without having to resort to such maneuvers.

Sounds like a fallacious argument to me.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

There is no argument to the fact that a child in the blastocyst stage of their life, growth and development is the biological child of the parents who created them. They are the young of their parents. Their 'child.'

This is not what comes to mind when the average person thinks of a "child". If you have to resort to some sort of dubious maneuvers between what a person normally thinks of when they think of a child and then some more technical definition when it comes to child and switch between the two in order to make to kill a "child/what most people have in mind" is the same as killing a "child/blastocyst" then this shows that such an argument can't maintain it's self without having to resort to such maneuvers.

Sounds like a fallacious argument to me.

If you think so, then you must also believe that the writers of the Laws, medical references and ethics literature are in on the 'fix' as well. Because it is their writings and determinations that my wording is supported by.

If you thing your references are superior in some way, you might consider accepting my recent debate challenge.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

There is no argument to the fact that a child in the blastocyst stage of their life, growth and development is the biological child of the parents who created them. They are the young of their parents. Their 'child.'

This is not what comes to mind when the average person thinks of a "child". If you have to resort to some sort of dubious maneuvers between what a person normally thinks of when they think of a child and then some more technical definition when it comes to child and switch between the two in order to make to kill a "child/what most people have in mind" is the same as killing a "child/blastocyst" then this shows that such an argument can't maintain it's self without having to resort to such maneuvers.

Sounds like a fallacious argument to me.

If you think so, then you must also believe that the writers of the Laws, medical references and ethics literature are in on the 'fix' as well. Because it is their writings and determinations that my wording is supported by.

If you thing your references are superior in some way, you might consider accepting my recent debate challenge.

Even if I accept what ever definition your using for "child", any argument that tries to switch between the two different senses of "child" is still open to my objection.